Letting off Steam

[John Nesbitt]

Fair question.

I'll ask this question - how can you expect the defending driver to actually know you're there if he can't see you?

Don't forget the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.d - "Any interior or exterior mirrors may be used."

If he cannot see you, then how is he the "defending driver"?

Seriously, though, read 6.11.1.D in its entirety:

The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely. The overtaken driver is responsible
to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or
who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be
black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7.

Note the phrase "responsible to be aware" and the reference to using mirrors. If one's mirrors don't show the road behind, it's time to adjust them.

In general, I would counsel folks against looking for deep or convoluted meanings in the GCR. Here is an extract from section 1.2.3.A (Interpreting and Applying the GCR):

Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations.

The simple, straightforward reading is the correct reading.

[dj10]

Guys & Gals, here is something to ponder. I was watching a TDI VW Pro race at Road America do you know that they penalized the leader for blocking just for making his car wide to the 2nd place car. Of course that is Pro racing and we as lowly club racers should never should be on the same standards as PRO RACERS, should we? ;~) I've been racing something or another since the 70's and I know the difference between making a car wide and intentional blocking and so will you when it happens to you.

[ShelbyRacer]

Get ready to hit my with the "I told you so"s when you see me.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALSMatthew Green vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 10-13-GLAugust 19, 2010 FACTS IN BRIEF On Saturday afternoon July 31, 2010, at the Cincinnati IT Spec*Taculardouble regional races held a at Mid Ohio Sports Car Course, MatthewGreen (ITB # 96) filed a protest against Charles Kane (ITS # 75) forviolation of GCR 6.11.1.A-D. (On Course Driver Conduct) for body contactduring their race. The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Fred McAninch andDan Hodge, Chairman, met, reviewed evidence and heard testimony. As Mr.Kane had already left the track for the day, the SOM adjourned untilSunday morning at which time they heard additional testimony andconcluded the hearing. They found the contact to be a "racing incident"and disallowed the protest. Mr. Green is appealing the decision of the SOM as well as their decisionto continue the hearing the next day. He also appeals the lack of actiontaken by the Chief Steward/Operating Steward. DATES OF THE COURT The SCCA Court of Appeals (COA), Jack Hanifan, Jack Marr and MichaelWest, Chairman, met on August19, 2010 to review, hear and render adecision on the appeal. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED 1. Appeal letter from Mr. Green, received August 11, 2010.2. Official Observers Report and related documents, received August16, 2010. 3. Email from SOM Chairman Dan Hodge, received August 16, 2010. FINDINGS Mr. Green offered no new evidence or information that was germane to thebody contact portion of his case. The COA found insufficient evidence tooverturn the SOM decision. On Mr. Green's procedural issue, the COA found Mr. Kane had not beenofficially notified of the pending protest prior to his leaving thetrack on Saturday afternoon. GCR 8.2. requires that hearings be held"...as soon as practical." The SOM correctly applied the GCR and heldthe hearing when Mr. Kane returned to the track the following morning.The COA notes Mr. Kane fully cooperated with the SOM once he wasnotified of the protest. As to the lack of action taken by the Chief Steward/Operating Steward,the Chief/Operating Steward has the authority to make that decisionbased on the situation. In addition, the decision by the OperatingSteward to not take action was not protested by Mr. Green at the event,therefore it is not open to review by the COA. DECISION The Court of Appeals upholds the decision of the SOM in its entirety.Mr. Green's appeal is deemed well-founded and the appeal fee, less theamount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

[seckerich]

I will just do it now in a friendly way. Regardless of the advice you get from Mr Nesbit the COA will blow you off on any stewards decision if all you do is second guess them. You have to provide NEW EVIDENCE if you expect them to overturn any decision. The steward has the option to use their judgement as far as on track incidents and the COA will not touch that unless they were negligent. They will look at video or witness statements not available to the first court. Cheap learning experience for you and all reading.

[ShelbyRacer]

Well, cheap for others. It cost me $100.

Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

[RedMisted]

Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

So to sum up this whole entire thread, a historically flawed system continues to perpetuate itself...

[dickita15]

Matt, my only question is was the part about the original court accepting the excuse that the other driver blamed his tires going away for the incident and them counseling him about maintaining his equipment part of the court’s documentation that the Board of appeals saw or was it just something they told you verbally.

[gran racing]

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

No. You were right in filing the protest just went about it in a way that wasn't quite effective. Don't wait for them to ask you for new evidence; provide it to them. There's more but it's already been said.

[dj10]

SCCA justice is to justice as military music is to music!

[seckerich]

Well, cheap for others. It cost me $100.

Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

Look at it this way Matt. We have stewards that are responsible for the running of our race weekend per the GCR. To get to that position they SHOULD have shown a level head and some common sense. As a rule most do and your protest and feedback to the Division director are taken into account when their license is reviewed. We may not always like their lack of action, or over reaction but they have earned a certain level of respect. They do not have anything other than yours, and others statements, and possible video. The original steward did not have video so he was going on your statement. Most will try to settle the dispute as gentleman as this is club racing. If you were in the Southeast the driver would have received a loss of 2 positions and possible points or probation on his license. See this link for very clear rules: http://www.sedivracing.org/2010_Penalty_Guidelines.pdf

You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence. I was like you until I was race chair for a few years and saw both sides. No black helicopters, just an opinion and worth what you pay for it. Just don't let this suck the fun out of a great sport.

[JohnRW]

If, as you left the track on that eventful weekend, a steward didn't hand you a sheet titled "Court of Appeals Procedures", you were done a disservice. It explains what the COA does...and does not...do in hearing appeals.

While you may be thinking "I've wasted enough energy on this", consider writing up a narrative about this, and send it to the Exec Steward for the Division (Great Lakes) and the Chairman of the Stewards (the national uber-steward). There are consequences for screwing stuff up...whether drivers, registrars, T&S, stewards...and while only the "drivers getting whacked" is visible, there are avenues to address "performance issues" in all "race specialties". Consider this - if you've already pissed them off, you're not going to be making new enemies.

[jjjanos]

Look at it this way Matt. We have stewards that are responsible for the running of our race weekend per the GCR. To get to that position they SHOULD have shown a level head and some common sense. As a rule most do and your protest and feedback to the Division director are taken into account when their license is reviewed. We may not always like their lack of action, or over reaction but they have earned a certain level of respect. They do not have anything other than yours, and others statements, and possible video. The original steward did not have video so he was going on your statement. Most will try to settle the dispute as gentleman as this is club racing. If you were in the Southeast the driver would have received a loss of 2 positions and possible points or probation on his license. See this link for very clear rules: http://www.sedivracing.org/2010_Penalty_Guidelines.pdf

And according to that document, the offending driver in this situation should have been penalized the same.

Was the contact avoidable? Undeniably yes... even if the "cause" of the accident was the loss of grip in the tires, there is NFW this loss was sudden. I.e. the driver knew his tires were less than ideal and failed to leave a suitable margin of error.

You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence.

According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.

Don't know if he was blowing smoke up my rear over this, so YMMV

[John Nesbitt]

According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.

That used to be the case, but no longer. The COA is now explicitly forbidden to be a first court.

In your example, where new evidence implicates a third party, the COA would send the matter back to the original SOM, who would hear the case against him/her.

This preserves Thumper's right to a full hearing plus appeal.

[924Guy]

Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

I've never heard such a lame-ass excuse for taking a guy out of the weekend.

And to do it to two drivers, the same way, on two races back-to-back? Inexcusable.

This guy needs some points on his license, and some time to consider the wisdom of driving within his abilities.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

[seckerich]

Had that been the basis for the appeal and the video of those two incidents presented to the COA you might have gotten the right outcome.

[RedMisted]

Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

Send "Chopper" to sort it out. I'm damn sure he'd gladly oblige...